The drug "Ice"

[tex]

Well it's supplied (amphetimine) by the government of North Korea, and that's working so well for that society...

Government sanctioned drug supply can't be a positive step in terms of limiting uptake. Surely.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by tex

Well it's supplied (amphetimine) by the government of North Korea, and that's working so well for that society...

Government sanctioned drug supply can't be a positive step in terms of limiting uptake. Surely.

One way for Kim Jong-un to keep control of his people!

[Franco Cozzo]

Obviously what we're doing now isn't working so maybe we approach from a different angle.

We've got heaps of different angles on the same issue here already, you won't stop it but you might be able to make improvements by taking a different approach.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by bathurst-racer

This sounds like the methadone program which operates in the community and in prisons.
If people knew of the rorts, crime and misery caused by this scheme they would be appalled.
I don't want to generalise however it is my experience everyday that there is no helping a drug addict because they lie, manipulate and live to take without any thought of gratitude or contributing to society.

Mate I know the methadone program all too well and yes you are exactly right. But if you read the link Buggerlugs put up, then no matter what you do you can't help the user. How did such an intelligent girl get hooked? By a dealer that knew once she is hooked, there's a hunger that can't be filled. Why do people deal? For money and to support their habit. So if we can't help the user then we can only stop more people getting hooked. So educate on the effects and get ride of the pushers and dealers.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by trublu

Why make it free, bloody hell you want to get people off it not promoting free drugs to use courtesy of the tax payer.

That's just it old son, you can't help the user. But we can stop more people getting hooked. As for courtesy of the tax payer, we are paying for it already in other ways.

[Maka]

“I got clean for six weeks and life was really crappy. I couldn’t function, I couldn’t do my job, I was lonely. I don’t have any friends who don’t do drugs.”

The above was taken from buggerlugs link & it says it all. So sad for her child & family, i hope for her child's sake she can become a functioning parent again one day.

cheers, Maka

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by XBROO

That's just it old son, you can't help the user. But we can stop more people getting hooked. As for courtesy of the tax payer, we are paying for it already in other ways.

I would guess that because people are now prepared to pay big money for the stuff, if it was given away more people would try it.
Because in their mindset "if the Gov is giving it away it cant be that bad".

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Maka

“I got clean for six weeks and life was really crappy. I couldn’t function, I couldn’t do my job, I was lonely. I don’t have any friends who don’t do drugs.”

The above was taken from buggerlugs link & it says it all. So sad for her child & family, i hope for her child's sake she can become a functioning parent again one day.

cheers, Maka

That's the problem with my school mate, his entire family uses and his usual circle of friends all use too, he is easily led into things by peer pressure.

I'm his only mate who doesn't use any drugs.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I would guess that because people are now prepared to pay big money for the stuff, if it was given away more people would try it.
Because in their mindset "if the Gov is giving it away it cant be that bad".

Yes and no, we have to educate the people and have the message in mainstream media. Like stories in the link or even your very own story, maybe not the actual people, but a role play maybe. Then have like the cigarettes ads around the place, showing the bad side of the drug. Make sure people know that just one puff can make you addicted and your life will change for the worst. Also your family and friends lives will change.

Look I'm just putting things out there, I might be looking at it all wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. But I like many others on here know the problem is getting worse. And something need to be done, before we loose more loved ones.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by trublu

Why make it free, bloody hell you want to get people off it not promoting free drugs to use courtesy of the tax payer.

Trublu,

If govt control it, you create a reliable product and remove the profit incentive from those who ake money from the fact it is illegal.

In Vic they want to spend $b for new prisons, I'd love to see them match this spendng with spendng on mental health.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by tex

Well it's supplied (amphetimine) by the government of North Korea, and that's working so well for that society...

Government sanctioned drug supply can't be a positive step in terms of limiting uptake. Surely.

Pong Su!

[StealthAu]

Originally Posted by tex

Well it's supplied (amphetimine) by the government of North Korea, and that's working so well for that society...

Government sanctioned drug supply can't be a positive step in terms of limiting uptake. Surely.

It's also supplied to children here if diagnosed with ADHD.

If handled in a similar manner to their pharmaceutical counterparts, not free but affordable to those in need, tapering programs and counselling available, I can't see it being worse than the way it is all currently handled.

Cannabis should be handled in a similar way to alcohol with additional regulation similar to tobacco. There is just no logical reason to subject it and it's users to more stringent control.

Determine how each drug should be regulated based on science, not propaganda.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by StealthAu

It's also supplied to the parents of children here if diagnosed with ADHD.

If handled in a similar manner to their pharmaceutical counterparts, not free but affordable to those in need, tapering programs and counselling available, I can't see it being worse than the way it is all currently handled.

Cannabis should be handled in a similar way to alcohol with additional regulation similar to tobacco. There is just no logical reason to subject it and it's users to more stringent control.

Determine how each drug should be regulated based on science, not propaganda.

* fixed that for you

dont ever under estimate the lengths scum bags will go to for so called legalised drugs

i used the term parents loosely

no bs

[StealthAu]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

* fixed that for you

dont ever under estimate the lengths scum bags will go to for so called legalised drugs

i used the term parents loosely

no bs

You're right man, some people are scum.

But if they didn't have to go to such lengths they wouldn't, it all comes back to how things are handled.

[Franco Cozzo]

Big illicit drug seizures don't lead to less crime or drug use, study finds

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/big-illici...26-11uagl.html

[doctor ford]

I lost a number a friends because of the drug ice its bad stuff it turns good people into criminals and psychos and the addiction they have stuffs there lives up and you just can't trust them anymore who ever invented it needs to be shot

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/big-illici...26-11uagl.html

I’ll add the text from your link.

Big illicit drug seizures don't lead to less crime or drug use, study finds

Date: 27 November, 2014
Sean Nicholls

Large-scale seizures of heroin, cocaine and amphetamines by police do not reduce the number of overdoses or arrests for possession and use of the drugs, according to the largest Australian study ever conducted into the area.

The study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) also found that the frequency and quantity of heroin, cocaine and amphetamines being seized by authorities had no effect on theft, robbery and assault figures.

However, the authors warn against concluding that this means the pursuit of large scale drug busts is a waste of time and money as the risks associated with being caught continue to keep prices high and a lid on the amount consumed.

"It shows it's probably better to spread fear and loathing among drug traffickers than focusing on increasing the amount of drugs that are seized," said BOCSAR director Don Weatherburn.

The study, to be published on Thursday, examined all significant seizures of heroin, cocaine and amphetamines in Australia between July 2001 and June 2011.

This data was tracked against emergency room admissions for drug overdose and arrests for drug use and possession over the same period.

The study also looked at the effects of a "high-level" NSW Crime Commission operation in 2010 that led to the seizure of a large amount of cocaine and the arrest of key players in the Sydney cocaine market.

The operation was chosen because the commission identified it as having the capacity to significantly affect the cocaine market.

The study found increases in the number of cocaine seizures were associated with increases in the number of arrests for cocaine use and possession and emergency room admissions. It noted that increases in the amounts of drugs seized appeared to be signals of increased rather than reduced supply.

For amphetamines, increases in the number of seizures coincided with more arrests for use and possession of the drugs.

The result for heroin was less clear. Data suggested more heroin seized led to fewer people arrested for use and possession, suggesting a reduction in availability.

But this clashed with data showing that increases in the number of heroin seizures coincided with more user arrests.

Three Crime Commission operations – Balmoral Athens, Tempest and Collage – netted 690 kilograms of cocaine and arrested 11 major suppliers over five months in 2010.

The operations "did bring an end to the upward trend in the rate of arrest for use and possession of cocaine" the researchers found. Emergency room admissions also temporarily fell.

"This suggests that very large seizures, perhaps when coupled with the arrest of key suppliers, may at least temporarily reduce consumption of illicit drugs," Dr Weatherburn said.

Dr Weatherburn said the overall results should not be read as indicating large drug seizure operations were a waste of money.

"All we have done is rule out any short-term association between drug seizures and drug-related harm," he said.

"The severe punishments associated with drug trafficking make these activities very risky. These risks keep illegal drug prices high and illegal drug consumption therefore lower than it would be in the absence of supply-side drug law enforcement."

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/big-illicit-drug-seizures-dont-lead-to-less-crime-or-drug-use-study-finds-20141126-11uagl.html


Another article today.

Drug surveillance operations an abject failure

Date: 1 December, 2014
Nicholas Cowdery and Alex Wodak

It's time to look critically at how we deal with illicit drugs. If we continue to exaggerate the impact of superficially tough and expensive responses, it will only ensure continued failure, write Nicholas Cowdery and Alex Wodak.

Drug-taking festival-goers are more likely use ecstasy or methamphetamines rather than cannabis if sniffer dogs are present.

Drug arrests and the rare fatalities at dance parties and music festivals are major media stories. Community concerns about drugs ensure that politicians and police leaders are keen to be seen to be doing something. Intensive police operations fit the bill. But do they actually reduce drug use or drug harms?

Uniformed police turn up at these events in huge numbers to conduct very visible surveillance with drug detection dogs. Often undercover police circulate inside and outside the venues.

These operations usually find some illicit drugs so a small number of attendees are charged. News media dutifully and uncritically reproduce police press releases where senior police confidently claim that the operations were effective. These assertions are never substantiated and rarely questioned.

During surveillance operations only in a tiny minority of searches find any drugs. Interpreting signals from the dogs, police officers often think drugs are present when there are none. Very many people who have drugs at these events are not detected. These operations achieve little and too often they are counter-productive.

NSW passed laws in 2001 to allow police to use dogs for public surveillance with the intention of catching more drug traffickers. In 2006, the NSW Ombudsman reviewed the program and found that successful prosecutions for supply were achieved in just 19 of 10211 searches. Given the scale of the NSW drug market it is an abject failure.

Having identified extensive and concerning problems, the Ombudsman made an­­­­­­ overarching recommendation that the government consider ending the program. If that recommendation was ever considered, it was never publicised – the case against drug dog surveillance was as overwhelming as the silence that followed. Inconvenienced by the facts, politicians and senior police simply waited until the issue faded from public view.

The program was retained with only the rhetoric changed. The public was now told that the objective was to deter drug use. Despite the failure of the program it was expanded, with the number of searches doubled by 2009. Every year since then, about 16,000 people have been searched.

Retrofitting a new purpose and rhetoric to a failing program is one thing but the program still fails the new objective. From 2007 to 2010, NSW doubled the number of searches but the program still failed. The rate of recent illicit drug use among people in NSW actually increased – from 12.1 per cent to 13.8 per cent. In a survey conducted each year from 2008 to 2010, the proportion of drug users who had drugs on them the last time they saw a detection dog also increased – from 60 per cent in 2008 to 69 per cent in 2010. There is no good evidence that heavy police surveillance at dance parties and music festivals deters drug use.

This should come as no surprise. Each year, far fewer than 1 per cent of NSW's illicit drug users are found with drugs during a dog operation. A 2012 study found that fewer than 10 per cent of people who had drugs on them when they saw a dog were detected. Among those who were searched while carrying drugs, the drugs were found less than half the time. With such limited success and a high false negative rate, the failure to deter drug use is entirely predictable.

The impact of these intrusive searches on people's lives is a major negative of the program. Another cost is that these operations seem to only increase the health risks. The presence of drug dogs at festivals and parties creates an incentive for attendees to take all their drugs at once prior to entering. Often this is preplanned, but sometimes it is a panicked decision when confronted by the dogs. In a study of drug safety at raves, 30 per centof those interviewed reported that they consumed drugs to avoid detection after seeing dogs at an event. A young man overdosed and died after doing this at a music festival in Penrith in 2013. Many other harmful but nonfatal overdoses undoubtedly occur.

Concerns about illicit drug use are valid. We must have the courage to look critically at how we, as a community, respond to these concerns and improve safety. Dishonesty about the impact of superficially tough and expensive responses ensures continuing failure.

The only way to eliminate any risk from drug use is to avoid their use entirely but public policy must respond to the reality that some drug use will inevitably occur. In the face of such obvious failure of intensive police surveillance operations at parties and festivals we should be looking for alternatives. If the safety of people is really of concern, why don't we follow the lead of many European countries to make "drug checking" services available? There are many options checking or testing, from simple do-it-yourself kits to laboratory-grade equipment. The best kind of tests would identify the major drugs present, estimate the purity of the sample and detect dangerous contaminants.

As dangerous new psychoactive drugs are increasingly entering the huge illicit drug market, the need now is greater than ever.

Nicholas Cowdery is Adjunct Professor of Law at UNSW and Alex Wodak is Emeritus Consultant, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/drug-surveillance-operations-an-abject-failure-20141130-11ucdp.html

[StealthAu]

Originally Posted by doctor ford

I lost a number a friends because of the drug ice its bad stuff it turns good people into criminals and psychos and the addiction they have stuffs there lives up and you just can't trust them anymore who ever invented it needs to be shot

It was discovered well before anyone on here was born. It's used in treating disorders. The drug isn't the problem, abuse of it is.

[LoudPipes]

The drug problem is definitely on the agenda with the media at the moment - more articles regarding Policing.

Drug searches: thousands falsely identified by sniffer dogs

Date: 30 November, 2014
Amy Corderoy

Tens of thousands of people are being subjected to "intrusive and humiliating'' unjustified police searches.

Tens of thousands of NSW residents are being subjected to public police searches after being falsely identified as carrying drugs by sniffer dogs.

Data obtained by the NSW Greens shows the sheer scale of drug dog searches across the state - with the majority of searches not finding drugs.

The figures also reveal the searches are not spread evenly across the city, with people atRedfern train station far more likely to be searched than those at Central or Kings Cross stations, even though Redfern searches are less likely to identify drugs.

Greens MP David Shoebridge said successive governments had failed to act on the problem of unjustified drug searches stemming from sniffer dog use.

"This data shows that every year in the range of 10,000 people are routinely and grossly inappropriately humiliated on our streets or on public transport," Mr Shoebridge said.

"Their rights are trespassed, they are subject to an intrusive and humiliating public search, and on each occasion that happens the police know that they are far more likely than not to find no drugs, and to not have a proper basis for the search - yet nobody is doing anything about it."

Will Tregoning, a director of harm reduction group Unharm, said there was no evidence the sniffer dog searches had a deterrence effect.

On Saturday Fairfax Media reported NSW had for the first time reached a million people who had recently used illicit drugs, despite increasing arrests of users.

"We have got a big drug dog detection program in NSW, and despite that doubling in the number of searches between 2007 and 2010 we were the only state to record a significant increase in prevalence of illicit drug use," Dr Tregoning said. "I think what we are seeing is part of a broader trend towards police attention towards possession/use offences."

He said not only were the drug dogs ineffective, they could actually lead to people switching from cannabis to more risky drugs, and using drugs more dangerously.

"One of the real concerns is that people preload - they take all their drugs before attending the event, and that can happen in one of two ways," he said.

"The first is pre-planned, and that is concerning in itself because it means if people have made that decision to use drugs, rather than spacing it out in a way that can enable them to see the effects of the first pill, for example, before they take the second, they are just taking the lot and hoping for the best.

"But perhaps even more concerning is the panicked overdose," he said, when people take all their drugs when fearing an imminent search.

One study of drug users found one in 10 said knowing sniffer dogs were at an event would make them not take drugs or change the drugs they used. However, 30 per cent said they had taken all their drugs at once when they had seen the dogs.

Another, of more than 2000 ecstasy users, found increasing drug use had little deterrence effect but did encourage some to consume all their drugs at once.

Last year a young man at a music festival called Defcon1 died this way, Dr Tregoning said.

Vicki Sentas, a lecturer in criminal law at the University of NSW, said despite evidence showing problems with the program, police had been given extended powers to use them in the Kings Cross area in 2012.

"Coupled with the alarming statistics that there is a very high false positive rate, what we are seeing is a normalisation and intensification of a very intrusive form of policing, which doesn't appear to have its intended effect of disrupting drug supply," she said.

She was concerned that police appeared to justify the efficacy of the program based on claims that people who had not been found with drugs often admitted to contact with them.

"It's spurious when the purpose of the program is to intercept or detect and offence," she said.

The chief executive of the drug research and advocacy organisation the Penington Institute, John Ryan, said sniffer dogs were "a recipe for overdose".

"Police crackdowns with dogs won't dent drug usage ... Sydney already has more accidental fatal drug overdoses than traffic accident deaths."

But a NSW Police spokesman said it would do everything in its power to protect the community.

"This includes stopping people from consuming drugs," he said. "It's vital that people recognise that illicit drugs have been outlawed for a reason – they are extremely dangerous."

He said drug dogs deterred people from using drugs.

"If our operations prevent just one person from putting their life at risk, then they are succeeding," he said.

Sniffer dog statistics
64% of searches found no drugs in 2013.
Nearly 17,800 people searched.
2.44% of searches led to successful prosecutions.
Passengers at Redfern Station 6.5 times more likely to be searched than passengers at Central Station.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/drug-searches-thousands-falsely-identified-by-sniffer-dogs-20141129-11wlty.html

Sniffer dog cavity searches questioned

Date: 2 December, 2014
Amy Corderoy

Invasive strip searches by police have increased by almost a third in NSW over the past five years, with thousands of people stripped naked on the basis of sniffer dogs incorrectly indicating they are carrying drugs.

Distressed patrons from music festivals and other events report being forced to take all their clothes off and squat down so police could check that they were not concealing drugs anywhere on, or in, their body, despite drug dog identifications being wrong the majority of the time.

On Sunday Fairfax Media revealed data obtained by the NSW Greens shows each year about 10,000 innocent people are subjected to general police searches for drugs after sniffer dogs incorrectly indicate they are carrying drugs, with searches turning up no drugs in about 64 per cent of cases.

On Monday night a forum was held in Redfern, which Fairfax Media has revealed people are 6.5 times more likely to be searched. Greens candidate Jenny Leong said if elected she would introduce legislation to shut down sniffer dog use in the general population.

The practice of naked searches after sniffer dog identification has increased by 32 per cent over the past five years, the data shows, despite the NSW Police Force Code of Practice stating that such searches should occur only if "the seriousness and urgency of the situation require" them.

Greens MP David Shoebridge said up to 500 innocent people each year were being subject to the "humiliating" naked searches.

"Where have we got to in this state when police are routinely stripping people down, getting them to squat naked over a mirror and then staring up their backsides, on the basis of a drug dog indication that is wrong two thirds of the time?"

He said the inaccuracy of the program, the violations of civil liberties and inappropriate targeting of vulnerable people meant it should be stopped.

"Police and politicians like drug dog operations because there is the appearance something is being done," he said. "It's PR, not policing."

Two people who had been strip searched by police who spoke to Fairfax Media on the condition of anonymity said they had already admitted to having drugs but were strip-searched anyway.

James, a 23 year old student, said: "They take you into a room and make you squat down to make sure you aren't hiding anything."

"It's pretty invasive, embarrassing and uncomfortable". James was not charged but was given a cannabis caution, which counsels users about the health and legal consequences of drug use.

Another, Marty, 43, said he was not made to squat but felt very intimidated, as he was surrounded by three officers with dogs before being forced to take his clothes off.

Will Tregoning from harm reduction group Unharm said the searches sometimes appeared to be used as a form of punishment or revenge.

"They aren't able to find many people with drugs so they are increasing the intrusiveness of the search".

He said they also damaged the relationships of a huge group of young people with the police, with 50 per cent of people in their 20s having used illicit drugs and 60 per cent of people in their 30s.

A spokesman for the NSW Police said it was incorrect to say the dog program was inaccurate, as 80 per cent of identifications involved either the person carrying drugs or admitting past contact with them.

He said officer observations combined with the dog's indication provided reasonable grounds for a search, but police did not conduct "cavity searches", which would be carried out by medical staff in hospitals or medical facilities.

"The devastating health impacts of illegal drugs are undeniable," he said. "Just last weekend, a number of patrons at the Stereosonic music festival were taken to hospital for the effects of illegal drugs."

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sniffer-dog-cavity-searches-questioned-20141201-11xpzh.html

[pottery beige]

Hide it in the boot

B.Cousins

[LoudPipes]

Sydney pair faces the death penalty over attempted 75kg 'ice' importation

A desperate and uncertain fate awaits two young residents from Sydney's north-west, behind bars in China tonight, accused of trying to smuggle kilos of the drug 'ice'.

Sydney pair Peter Gardner and Kalynda Davis only met a few weeks ago, but have been charged together by Chinese authorities after allegedly trying to import 75kg of methamphetamine or "ice" from China to Australia.

They could potentially face a firing squad, with questions now being raised about a sophisticated drug importation ring at Sydney Airport.

And it has emerged Mr Gardner may have attempted the smuggling feat before.

Mr Gardner's former employer Michael Kulakovski said he feared for the young man's future.

"To be caught with substance in China is probably one of the worst countries to be caught in," Mr Kulakovski said.

The tickets were booked at the Richmond Marketplace Flight Centre in Sydney's west, just minutes away from Mr Gardner's family home.

9NEWS understands on November 5, Mr Gardner and Ms Davis flew from Sydney International Airport to Guangzhou.

They were booked to fly back to Sydney on November 8, just three days later and then transit to Auckland.

But they were intercepted at the airport by Chinese authorities, and never boarded the flight.

9NEWS understands Mr Gardner may have made a similar trip within recent weeks, stopping by Perth and New Zealand.

He is understood to have told a number of work colleagues that he was working as a carpenter in Goulburn to explain his absence.

"He was doing really good, he had a lot of work and he was earning good money," Mr Kulakovski said.

"(I) don't know why he's done this."

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's office said no comment would be made as the matter is before the courts.

The case is expected to be heard in court in China later this week.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/nation...ion/ar-BBgdZkF

[LoudPipes]

High risk: drug war fought with dollars

Date: 3 December, 2014
Ross Gittins

How goes the war on drugs? On the face of it, not well. But in thinking about the drug problem it helps to know a bit of economics. When you do, you see things aren't as bad as they seem.

Most people agree that the use of heroin, cocaine and amphetamines such as speed and ice can become highly addictive and, when they do, a lot of harm is done to users and their families.

There's little reason to doubt that the high price of illegal drugs hugely reduces the number of users and the amount each user uses.

So most of us agree that governments should be working to limit the use of such harmful drugs. The arguments come over how best to do it. The conventional approach is to make the production, importation, distribution, sale and consumption of such drugs illegal. Problem solved.

But we've been pursuing this prohibition approach for years, spending a fortune on policing, the courts and the high proportion of drug offenders in our jails. With all this has gone a fair bit of police corruption.

And yet illegal drug use remains widespread, with still too many drug overdoses and drug deaths. The seizures, arrests and prison sentences roll on, seemingly to little effect. People may be using less heroin, but its place has been taken by ice which, if anything, seems worse.

If prohibition so clearly isn't working, shouldn't we try a different approach?

Last week the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research published research that seems to provide powerful support for the contention that the conventional approach is broken.

We've all seen TV news reports of police proudly displaying the seemingly huge quantity of drugs they've just seized after an intricate detection operation. We're told the "street value" of the seized drugs, with the implication that this success will put a hole in drug consumption.

The take-away message is clear. See? The tide has turned and we're winning the war after all.

But the study took the figures for seizures and arrests of suppliers of illegal amphetamines, cocaine and heroin, and compared them with the figures for two indirect measures of drug use: hospital emergency department admissions for drug overdoses and arrests for drug use or possession. The figures were for the whole of Australia, over the 10 years to June 2011.

The study found no evidence that increases in drug seizures and arrests of drug suppliers reduced the number of emergency department admissions or the number of arrests for use or possession.

The study also analysed three specific NSW police operations – named Balmoral Athens, Tempest and Collage – identified by the NSW Crime Commission as being so successful they had the potential to affect the market for cocaine.

It found that the three operations did have the effect of reducing arrests for use or possession of cocaine, but the effect was only temporary.

In fact, the study found that increases in drug seizures were often associated with increases in hospital admissions and arrests of users. Huh? The likely explanation is that at times when there is a lot more of the drugs available, the police will be able to increase the amount they seize.

What more proof do you need? Prohibition isn't working and we should try something else. Many medical people would like to see less emphasis on criminalisation and more on harm reduction. Just imagine if we could take all the money poured into catching and punishing people and use it to help people get off drugs and sort out their lives.

But Dr Don Weatherburn and the other authors of the study argue strongly against using its findings to conclude that drug law enforcement is a waste of money.

Why not? Because, when you look at the issue the way an economist would, you realise there's more to prohibition that just attempting to stamp out all illicit drug use.

The other thing it does is force up the price of drugs. Research suggests the black-market price of cocaine in the United States is between 2 1/2 and five times what it would be in a legal market. For heroin it was between eight and 19 times higher.

Economists, as you know, are great believers in the power of prices, and in using prices to change people's behaviour. There's little reason to doubt that the high price of illegal drugs hugely reduces the number of users and the amount each user uses.

Before we write off prohibition we need to consider what economists call the "counterfactual": what would the world be like if these drugs weren't outlawed? Far more people would be using them and the amount of harm needing to be reduced would be almost infinitely greater.

But the law-enforcers need to remember what it is that's keeping the price of drugs so high. It's obviously not their success in greatly limiting the supply of drugs relative to the demand.

No, it's the high incomes drug producers and traffickers need to earn to induce them to run the great risk of imprisonment that working in this industry entails. As an economist would think of it, it's the big "risk premium" suppliers add to the prices they charge that keeps prices so high.

This suggests that rather than trying to maximise the size of the seizures they can parade on telly to prove how successful they are, law enforcers should maximise the risks of traffickers getting caught, thereby inducing them to charge a higher risk premium.

Ross Gittins is economics editor.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/high-risk-drug-war-fought-with-dollars-20141202-11y8c7.html

[mr1nfamous]

Crackheads everywhere.

[GasoLane]

I don't know if anyone read my earlier post or is still following or this thread, however we've managed to get 'Mary' to clean her act up a lot.

Got her to move out of town to another little village about 2hrs away. This is close enough for us to visit and gets her away from her circle of 'friends'.
As those that own a car wouldn't drive that far to visit, and certainly wouldn't waste their drug money on a tank of petrol.

In the town are some old school friends and a couple of relatives who will be looking out for her and her two girls.

It must be said that they (addicts) must want to help themselves before anything worthwhile can be achieved.
If they're not interested in staying straight you don't have much hope of helping them.

[nuthin' fancy]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I don't know if anyone read my earlier post or is still following or this thread, however we've managed to get 'Mary' to clean her act up a lot.

Got her to move out of town to another little village about 2hrs away. This is close enough for us to visit and gets her away from her circle of 'friends'.
As those that own a car wouldn't drive that far to visit, and certainly wouldn't waste their drug money on a tank petrol.

In the town are some old school friends and a couple of relatives who will be looking out for her and her two girls.

It must be said that they (addicts) must want to help themselves before anything worthwhile can be achieved.
If they're not interested in staying straight you don't have much hope of helping them.

Fingers crossed these are the first steps down the right path for her.

[Focusfan]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I don't know if anyone read my earlier post or is still following or this thread, however we've managed to get 'Mary' to clean her act up a lot.

Got her to move out of town to another little village about 2hrs away. This is close enough for us to visit and gets her away from her circle of 'friends'.
As those that own a car wouldn't drive that far to visit, and certainly wouldn't waste their drug money on a tank petrol.

In the town are some old school friends and a couple of relatives who will be looking out for her and her two girls.

It must be said that they (addicts) must want to help themselves before anything worthwhile can be achieved.
If they're not interested in staying straight you don't have much hope of helping them.

Magnificent news, hope it all works.
Friends.? What friends. Real friends do NOT lead you do drugs.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I don't know if anyone read my earlier post or is still following or this thread, however we've managed to get 'Mary' to clean her act up a lot.

Got her to move out of town to another little village about 2hrs away. This is close enough for us to visit and gets her away from her circle of 'friends'.
As those that own a car wouldn't drive that far to visit, and certainly wouldn't waste their drug money on a tank petrol.

In the town are some old school friends and a couple of relatives who will be looking out for her and her two girls.

It must be said that they (addicts) must want to help themselves before anything worthwhile can be achieved.
If they're not interested in staying straight you don't have much hope of helping them.

Awesome news mate, lets hope you'll have your little girl back again in the not too distant future.

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by bathurst-racer

Harmless drugs such as cannabis....
Party drugs......

Spend a day with me as I work in the prison system and deal with the people with cannabis related problems.

Spend the next day with me when I take a close friend to their Oncology treatment. If you can't handle watching people desperately clinging to life come with me to Hamilton hospital and visit my childhood friend who talks to his fourth dimension heavenly angels. He will gladly chat to you in between regularly having his soiled nappies changed by burly male nurses. I'm in my mid fifties and so many people I grew up with are dealing with issues which can be traced back to their drug abuse when they were younger.

Sure abuse me here online and roll out your quack supporting evidence but those amongst who didn't have drugs in our lives are successful while most of the users are either dead, ill or have nothing.

/\ This! He & I have both been there or are still there.
Be very careful, what you wish for - you just may get it........

[StealthAu]

Originally Posted by Burnout

/\ This! He & I have both been there or are still there.
Be very careful, what you wish for - you just may get it........

People with problems can show issues with just about any substance. Just because there are alcoholics, as well as mentally unstable people who drink alcohol, this does not mean that anyone who has a drink will end up a train wreck.
But if we are only going to base our views on the extremes, compare those with alcohol abuse related problems to those who abuse cannabis.

[buggerlugs]

Far out...................
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...=1421560144602